Trouble logging in?If you can't remember your password or are having trouble logging in, you will have to reset your password. If you have trouble resetting your password (for example, if you lost access to the original email address), please do not start posting with a new account, as this is against the forum rules. If you create a temporary account, please contact us right away via Forum Support, and send us any information you can about your original account, such as the account name and any email address that may have been associated with it.

All of the questions asked where pretty odd and I find it incredibly dubious that none of them asked for an explanation of the endings especially considering that someone asked a stupid question about "who the devs would want to throw into the synthesis beam instead of shepard" without asking for an explanation on how its even possible to merge synthetic and organic life in the first place...

Stage fright. Barking on a forum is one thing, but asking the same daring questions when in the spotlight in front of hundreds of people? That's going to cause nerves.

The question I would've asked would probably have been "who is the starchild?" I mean, telling us who build the reapers is one thing, but if the answer to that question becomes itself another question (in this case "okay, so who the hell build you?") you're probably better of not answering the question at all.

Either that, or "could you explain how and why Joker managed to pick up your crew from the ground and jump the mass relay before you fired the crucible?"

I don't want clarification on the existing endings, which is why my question would have been, "In the Extended Cut patch, is the Reaper God Kid deleted and retconned out of existence? If the answer is no, I'm not buying anything you make ever again, you creatively bankrupt corporate zombies."

This especially pisses me off, watching Bioware's decline, because they're one of the very few game developers that acknowledge the existence of lesbian and gay gamers. If there's nothing I hate more in heavy character-driven games is enforced, mandatory straightness.

I dunno where this craze came for calling games art. Is it to con governments into giving grants because they call it art? Art is something to be observed from the outside, not something you interact with. The moment you interact with something it ceases being art and becomes entertainment. Games are interactive entertainment, that doesn't mean that they can't be creative, fun, have a rich story or be controversial. But they should make sense, they need cohesion and direction and lastly they should provide enough closure so those that don't want to purchase DLCs can feel satisfied.

That video, is hilarious.

Side note, having played some more with Jarik I really do not see how they could justify him as a DLC like they did. Also, does Liara have a penchant to charge into the middle of a group of bad guys like Braveheart with a death wish and get herself killed for anyone else? I've been using Garrus and Javik more now, but I'd like to see Liara's interactions with him. How do you guys find EDI, she seems like a more sensible Liara at this point, but more focused on synthetics/electronics.

EDI is slightly better than Liara in terms of AI scripts. Partially because she is one (I kid). She's basically an Engineer, but she gets access to Decoy and Defense Matrix, which means she's not going to die as easily. I wish there were a Tactics option you could set for squadmates, like DA:O and DA2, so you could set them to ranged/power based or close range/melee; etc.

But if you want story interaction, Liara and Javik are the way to go. EDI and Garrus/Tali would be second. Ashley just gets drunk, and I hadn't bothered to go through a save file where Kaiden isn't a pile of radioactive ashes on Virmire. And James... awesome tank and chill guy, but he can keep flirting with Steve in the armory.

Vega is actually a great character gameplay-wise, but story-wise... I found him to be annoying. Very, very annoying. The shuttle pilot was slightly more interesting, mostly for being a completely honest gay male character not played for humor or worse. I felt that was good.

The other problem with Vega (and also the bimbo reporter/IGN bitch) was the real-person digitized faces look really out-of-place next to the characters with facegens. The digitized faces do not look half as natural in ME3 as they did in ME2 (and all the faces in ME1 were done with the facegen). It just looks bad, like they were Photoshopped in.

Liara dies constantly. Constantly. She did in ME1, and she continues to do so in ME3. Her AI scripts apparently do not know what "cover" is.

Liara, if I recall correctly, has low health compared to everyone else, usually, she was the first to die, so I was mostly keeping an eye on her. I was playing a Sentinel with Liara and Javic as my default group. They let more biotic skills do combos so it was explosion hell all the time, so I was paying attention to where they were and what they were doing.

After all, Shepard ends up killing everything himself anyway, so unless they got ganged or an Asari abomination came up, they were usually ok.
EDI? Used her sometimes, but I was just sticking with Liara and Javik.

I love the byplay between Vega and Cortez, it's highly amusing (EDI and Joker are pretty good too, although she seems a bit leery of him in that new body at first). I didn't mind him calling me Lola either, thought it was funny. Do Tali and Garrus still 'calibrate' together if you are romancing one of them (or trying to)? Have never really bothered with romance in this series, other then a passing interest in Liara in the first (since she was kind of thrown into your lap), so kind of flip-flopping around on the idea (and who).

I find Garrus and Javik to be a good combo at the moment, might change later on but both of them are quite tankish and decent hitters. It lets me sort of hang behind them blasting away with biotics. I do like the Prothean pulse rifle dohicky, it ramps up damage fast if it can hold on target. Might switch Garrus out for Liara, just make her stand next to me on a leash the whole time. Don't charge Liara you're not a Krogan, good girl.

Hehe now I want a jar full of glowing ashes in the Captains Cabin with a "Kaiden" label on it.

Also, Pet Rachni do want, then I can run around yelling I AM THE SWARM.

I dunno where this craze came for calling games art. Is it to con governments into giving grants because they call it art? Art is something to be observed from the outside, not something you interact with. The moment you interact with something it ceases being art and becomes entertainment. Games are interactive entertainment, that doesn't mean that they can't be creative, fun, have a rich story or be controversial. But they should make sense, they need cohesion and direction and lastly they should provide enough closure so those that don't want to purchase DLCs can feel satisfied.

Whether games are art is an ongoing debate, and here are two sides to the story.

First, there are the people who genuinely believe games are a form art. Most of these people are artists themselves, and their reasons for believing so are mostly art related as well. They don't look at the business side of the works, but instead at the expression side. They dive into the deeper layers of the game, beyond the "move to X and do Y" and more in "what do you see/feel/gain when playing."

The other side is a more... pragmatic one. It's no secret that games are the rock and roll of our generation. Evil things that should be banned by law by a frighteningly influential group of people. Having games acknowledged as an art form would shield them from many complaints and legal consequences.

Now as for whether games are an art, my personal opinion is that they can be. I've always found the standards for declaring something "art" to be subjective -and sometimes hypocritic- to begin with. Not to mention most of these unofficial standards are centuries old. Something is not art if it's interactive? Why not? Who decided that? As a kid I used to play on many statues and other artworks scattered throughout my living place, does that mean these statues are not art?

And there's the core of the debate: What standards do we use to determine if something is art?

btw I think that most of the panels are shit and waste of time. People who ask the questions there are either as someone said "planted some people in for questions" or just simply dumb. I remember watching live streams from E3 in summer at night, where people asked questions like " Can we customize our weapons?" and got "Yes, you can", which was known for a long time and so on.

I don't like the idea of games being defined solely as 'art', I think that limits the medium. Art is far to subjective - because there is a lot of (what I would consider steaming piles of) shit out there. I do however think that something can be artistic and not considered solely art, which is where I would classify games. If something is artistic, its 'art' only makes up a part of the whole. The creator calling something 'art' is a cop out as far as I'm concerned. Ultimately to me anything defined as 'art' has to stand the test of time to be upheld in cultural significance, otherwise it's a fad.

I personally see computer games on a similar level as I do novels, and tier or two above boardgames (which video games are the evolution/successors of). They're creative, interactive, fun and engage you directly. They, all three, can be artistic but can't solely defined as 'art'. I don't consider Lord of the Rings to be art, but I know and agree that it's a great story that has influenced many.

I would call computer games artistic entertainment, but not art. Maybe my definition of what (pure) art is is to old fashioned or maybe I'm just sick of seeing people throw paint tins at a wall and getting declared artists.

That's my take on it anyway.

(side note, I don't care about the money side - that's a whole other issue.)

----

Sheppard sure has aged in that picture.

Q&A panels are shit imo, unscreened ones are almost as useless as screened ones. The Devs have limited things that they can answer, which usually don't stray much further from what screened questions cover because of NDA's. Unscreened ones might be able to trick something out of them, or get it worded differently, but you have to put up with horribly worded questions or questions that play on the crowd feelings which puts the devs on the spot (which they still cant answer, or have to walk the line) leaving everyone with a bitter taste. It's better off sticking to a presentation, supplemented with video or demos.

btw I think that most of the panels are shit and waste of time. People who ask the questions there are either as someone said "planted some people in for questions" or just simply dumb. I remember watching live streams from E3 in summer at night, where people asked questions like " Can we customize our weapons?" and got "Yes, you can", which was known for a long time and so on.

Are games art? Some are. I'd absolutely be willing to say that Shadow of the Colossus is art. There's also a lot of indie games that I'd consider art... Trauma comes to mind, as does Limbo and Braid. The original Deus Ex is art--it's not a game, it's a first-person-perspective sociology essay.

Most games, though, aren't art. They're fun and dirty entertainment, like a pulp sci-fi or trashy romance novel, a spy novel or an oldschool comic book. Do I think this is a bad thing? Not at all. Not everything has to be high, incomprehensible, mind-tweaking ARRRRT. Some things can just be fun.

Are games art? Some are. I'd absolutely be willing to say that Shadow of the Colossus is art. There's also a lot of indie games that I'd consider art... Trauma comes to mind, as does Limbo and Braid. The original Deus Ex is art--it's not a game, it's a first-person-perspective sociology essay.

Most games, though, aren't art. They're fun and dirty entertainment, like a pulp sci-fi or trashy romance novel, a spy novel or an oldschool comic book. Do I think this is a bad thing? Not at all. Not everything has to be high, incomprehensible, mind-tweaking ARRRRT. Some things can just be fun.

I agree with you; mostly games that can be considered art come from indies developers these days instead of developers that are under the fist of a publisher like EA or Activision.

I still don't understand why Bioware can accept the awful ending and accept they screwed it instead of calling artistic integrity. Hell, if that's so I can draw a person and a house like a kid of five years old and say that is art and that no one should defy my artistic integrity.

I can't understand why Bioware won't just change the fucking ending. If they change it, if they delete the deus ex machina in the form of the blue god kid, change up the cutscene order a bit, add some title cards with "where are they now" epilogue... nobody would be upset anymore!

But no. Artistic integrity! They have to "clarify" the existing (terrible) ending.

Which is essentially Casey Hudson telling us we're all too stupid to understand his artistic vision and thus we must have it explained to us like we're small children.

Why the hell is EA not putting a stop to this ego-stroking on a grand scale? Don't they realize their stock prices are in the shitter?

Why the hell is EA not putting a stop to this ego-stroking on a grand scale? Don't they realize their stock prices are in the shitter?

Because the senior VPs at EA who are in charge of the BioWare brand, who BTW are the same guys who ran BioWare before EA bought them up and thus have enlarged bias, are too trusting of Casey Hudson, who worked on of the original KoTOR which is considered one of BioWare's finer moments.